In “Goodbye, Hemispheres magazine and little bottles of shampoo” (Sept. 8), the Tribune Editorial Board raises the question, “We’re not sure what the little bottles did to merit this specific legal prohibition from Springfield,” referring to the Small Single-Use Plastic Bottle Act recently signed into law by Gov. JB Pritzker. As an organizer and advocate working in Chicago to reduce single-use plastics, I’d like to share some insights about how this came to be.
Dozens of civic groups, museums and businesses across the state of Illinois, the country and around the world are being forced to play Whac-A-Mole with the single-use plastic problem. We all want a national response (see the proposed Break Free From Plastic Pollution measure in Congress) that would address the problem and make everyone’s life, including business and industry, more predictable rather than forcing all manner of jurisdictions to address this problem, but until such time, we are forced to address the issue a tiny bottle at a time.
The city of Chicago had a chance to pass the Plastic-Free Water Ordinance in 2020. Instead, we got a watered-down version that targets only plastic cutlery; now, businesses must provide plastic cutlery only upon request. There is no enforcement mechanism in place. It is a toothless policy that leaves the burden once again on millions of consumers.
We wanted a ban on plastic bags at retail outlets but had to settle for a bag fee in Chicago that is generating $6 million a year for city coffers. We have been asking state lawmakers to ban toxic Styrofoam in foodware for several years and gotten only tepid commitments and deferrals.
So, you see we have to tackle this one single-use item at a time because despite the fact that about 80% of Americans want action on single-use plastics, very little is being done in Illinois or nationally to stem the suffocating tide of plastics.
Regarding that “little bottle of fancy shampoo,” most of the major hotel chains are well on their way to implementing this policy. They see the sense of saving money, reducing the scourge of single-use plastics and letting their customers know they care about the environment. I don’t know about the editorial board’s writers, but I’ve never stood naked in the shower facing an empty shampoo container. It’s not really that onerous to refill those. And doing so let’s the world know we’re serious about solving the single-use plastics crisis.
— Jon Schmidt, Chicago
Editorial misses the mark
I don’t know which is worse, that the Tribune Editorial Board took the time to write about small plastic bottles and an airline magazine hardly anyone reads or that I took the time to read the editorial and get annoyed by it.
Whoever frumped about the small plastic bottles may not have stayed in a hotel for a while and seen that those big refillable bottles are clearly not refilled after every guest. Whoever frumped about the cost and time efficiency of hotel employees refilling large bottles clearly doesn’t care much about the 57 million tons of plastic pollution humanity generates every year. Are editorial board members really that “frugally minded”? Just because a member of the board may take home the partially empty bottles doesn’t mean they are reusing them. And they’re using small plastic bottles of shampoo and body lotion to prompt memories? Oh my.
If they endured the “horror of standing naked in a shower” because the refillable bottles weren’t refilled, then why does the editorial suggest the things are refilled after every guest? And it’s a first-world problem of inconvenience to step out of the shower to get a handful of washing liquid from the dispenser by the sink or grab the little bar of soap. Yes. Horrors.
The editorial board is right. Private jets and plastic containers of all kinds contribute to those 57 million tons of plastic pollution. Will banning the small bottles make a big difference? Nope. But it’s not as though many well-known hotel brands hadn’t already made the shift on their own, so you, my friend, are spitting in the wind. If the board wants to write about plastic pollution, perhaps doing so in a more meaningful way would be a better use of all of our time.
If the board wants to write about injustices, find something worthwhile to write about. Even if the board meant to be satirical, a writing form that takes a deft touch and which the board fumbled, it’s still a waste of time and space. Yours and mine, and now ours again.
My apologies to Tribune readers.
— Elaine J. Roberts, Barrington
How do we improve recycling?
In Friday’s Tribune, the Associated Press article “Plastic waste tops 57M tons each year” was a real eye opener. Scientists found that not only plastic waste but also the production of plastic contributes to climate change.
Where I live, city haulers collect recyclables every other week. The problem is they don’t publish a list of what is recyclable and what is not. Also another problem I have is: How do you recycle containers such as jelly, peanut butter, ketchup, mustard and other hard-to-empty plastic containers? Yes, you can wash them, but that defeats the purpose since you would be wasting water, another scarce commodity. Anyone have other ideas about recycling?
I would appreciate any advice, and I’m sure others would also.
— Harold Plucienik, Chicago Heights
Let’s put a price on carbon
While a substantial majority of Americans report being concerned or very concerned about climate change, the No. 1 issue for the majority is the economy. I suggest that the most effective way to address the second is to address the first.
Even with climate change constantly in the news, I know it’s hard to worry about it when you’re hungry, homeless, ill or unemployed — especially as politicians of both major parties promise relief from those problems. However, the promises are aspirational and lacking in specifics. They will be very expensive. With tax cuts also promised, who will pay?
Think of it this way. The skyrocketing cost of repairing, mitigating and building resilience to damage from disasters related to climate change seriously impacts the national economy. Climate change also brings personal economic costs to everyone who is directly affected by wildfires and extreme weather events, and tragedy to some. It impacts the agriculture, tourism, energy, construction, transportation and health care sectors of the economy and trickles down to everyone’s pockets.
Yes, the economy is in trouble, and climate change with its cascade of consequences is a leading cause. The economy cannot thrive and grow unless we stop making climate change worse. The only way to do that is to stop burning fossil fuels, and there’s a way to do that, too. A recent international study proved what economists have said and models have found for years: A carbon price that makes polluters pay is a vital part of any strategy for phasing out fossil fuels.
The World Bank reports that about 40 nations have a carbon price, usually a cap-and-trade or similar system. But the most effective price is a tax on carbon pollution commensurate with its social cost. Rather than enriching the government, most or all of the income should be returned as dividends to taxpayers to compensate for an initial increase in energy prices. Some could be invested in research and development and in conservation incentives such as those offered by the Inflation Reduction Act under President Joe Biden’s administration.
Congress must help. For the sake of everyone’s economy, health and future, we need a robust carbon tax coupled with pollution regulations and clean energy subsidies. Think about that when you decide which candidates to vote for in the approaching elections.
— Carol Steinhart, Madison, Wisconsin
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
